Posted on 11/21/2004 9:01:46 PM PST by DoctorZIn
The US media has finally discovered Iran. For the past few years the media has largely ignored news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” As a result, most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).
There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.
The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.
In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.
This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.
I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.
If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.
If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.
DoctorZin
PS Check out our blog.
 |
Downing Street has welcomed an announcement from Iran that it is suspending its nuclear programme.
The Tehran administration said on state television on Monday that it is ceasing its uranium enrichment development in line with international demands to curb its weapons ambitions.
Britain, France and Germany have been at the forefront of efforts to persuade Iran to step down and had set this week as a deadline for compliance.
With Washington adopting a tougher stance and the threat of military action being debated in the US, the pressure was on the Tehran regime to avoid the issue being taken to the UN security council.
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will now seek to verify the claims.
But Number 10 said, while it waited for signs that the promise would be fulfilled, events were at least moving in the right direction.
"Clearly the important thing is that Iran is showing signs of compliance," the prime minister's official spokesman said.
"But equally importantly is that it is implemented. That is what will determine where we are in the process."
However Tony Blair was not considering the use of troops or air strikes to enforce the international community's will, Downing Street insisted.
"He is not aware of any discussion in which military action has been discussed," the spokesman said.
And the foreign secretary added that the UN route had not been ruled out.
"If there is a failure by Iran to meet its obligations then Britain and also Germany and France reserve our collective right to refer the matter to the security council," Jack Straw said.
Straw was speaking from Egypt where he was attending an international meeting on supporting elections in Iraq.
The two day event, which was taking place in the Sharm el-Sheik resort, was also attended by representatives of the Iranian government.
Britain is resisting pressure from the Arab League and others to set a clear timetable for the withdrawal of its troops from the region.
2004 Monday 22 November
BRUSSELS (AFP) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw voiced hope for an accord to end a nuclear standoff with Iran, but reiterated the row could still end up in the UN Security Council if Tehran fails to comply.
Speaking ahead of a crunch meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog body this week, he said he hoped an accord reached between Iran and the European Union's so-called Euro three -- Britain, France and Germany -- would be formally approved.
"What we're looking forward to is a translation of that agreement into a text which is then agreed by consensus by the IAEA board of governors," he said, referring to talks Thursday at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"I hope very much that a way will be found as a result of these negotiations for Iran to come fully into compliance with its obligations," he added.
But he reiterated a warning that "if there is a failure by Iran to meet its obligations then Britain, and also Germany and France, reserve our collective right to refer the matter to the (UN) Security Council."
Iran agreed a week ago in a deal with the three EU states to suspend as of Monday all its uranium enrichment-related activities as a confidence-building measure in order to avoid being taken to the UN Security Council.
Iranian state television said Monday that Tehran was suspending uranium enrichment activities in accordance with the agreement.
On Thursday the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors is to discuss Iran's case. The Vienna-based body must verify the suspension if Iran is to escape the threat of sanctions, something the United States has been pushing for.
Washington accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge denied by Tehran.
Straw, speaking on arrival at a regular meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, added the Europeans have sought for the last 16 months to resolve the issue within the framework of the IAEA.
But he said: "If of course we are unable to do that, then that (going to the UN Security Council) remains an option."
Iran had already frozen the actual enrichment process since October 2003, but had pressed on with work on other parts of the fuel cycle -- including converting raw uranium into the gas fed into centrifuges and making the centrifuges themselves.
The Islamic republic insists it only wants to enrich uranium to low levels, so as to become self-sufficient in producing fuel for a series of atomic energy reactors it plans to build in the future.
But Western officials have suggested that once it has mastered the fuel cycle, Iran could divert its programme towards making highly enriched uranium -- the explosive core of a nuclear bomb.
In Vienna Monday the IAEA said it should be able to verify Iran's announced suspension of uranium enrichment activity before the agency's board meeting on Thursday.
"Hopefully by Thursday I should be able to report that we've verified the suspension," its chief Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters.
London, England, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- The Iranian regime has no intention of honoring its pledge to end nuclear activities, an Iranian opposition spokesman said Monday.
Farid Sulamani of the People's Mujahedin, or Mujahedin Khalq, told the BBC: "The Iran regime is intent on acquiring an atomic bomb and the world has a duty to stop that."
Sulamani said reliable sources at the highest level of the Iranian leadership spoke of the mullahs' continued pursuit of weapons to defend the regime and export the Islamic revolution to the world.
The remarks came as the IAEA confirmed Iran had fulfilled its commitment of relinquishing uranium enrichment and processing activities. However Sulamani insisted opposition and U.S. revelations in past days of undisclosed sites and material proved activities were continuing "as we speak."
The Iranian regime, he said, was "the poster child" for the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
"They need nuclear weapons simply because they want to export their terrorism and anarchy to the world," he continued.
The exiled Mujahedin Khalq is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terror organization. However, the group insists it is working for a democratic Iran and is committed to the idea of a nuclear free Middle East.
Posturing on suspected nuclear threats is no substitute for negotiated settlements.
That a Middle Eastern state thousands of kilometres from the Pacific rim should come to dominate the agenda of the 2004 APEC meeting should come as no surprise. US President George Bush has taken to using APEC summits to advance issues that have little to do directly with the purpose of the forum.
In 2001 he used APEC in Shanghai to marshal a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. He used the 2002 summit in Mexico to strengthen member nations' resolve against terrorism and to try to build a coalition for an invasion against Iraq. This year Mr Bush used what are supposed to be regional economic and trade talks to flag US concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, meanwhile, lobbied APEC foreign ministers separately on the need for a tough stance on Iran. Mr Bush and Mr Powell are relying on limited US intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to suggest that Iran is trying to modify its missile fleet to render it nuclear-capable.
As the US and its allies remain bogged down in post-invasion Iraq, the past weaknesses of US intelligence on WMD are apparent enough. Of course, Iran - along with North Korea - is one of the original triad nominated by Mr Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address as forming the "axis of evil". He spoke then of a "second goal" of preventing regimes that sponsor terrorism from threatening America or allies with weapons of mass destruction, nominating Iran and North Korea.
European Union negotiators in the case of Iran, and China, as head of six-party talks, in the case of North Korea have already covered much ground towards deactivating the nuclear programs of both countries. The efficacy of the US publicly increasing pressure now in either case is at best doubtful and quite possibly counterproductive. With the appointment of Condoleezza Rice to head the State Department, the note of caution that her predecessor might have been expected to sound will be no longer heard.
Dr Rice is not averse to the doctrine of pre-emption or the morality of using force to secure US interests. For the moment, US policy deficiencies on Iran and North Korea are replaced by posturing. The danger is that posturing by the US is historically a short step from unilateral intervention.
The home-spun Bush vision for a safer America based upon the delivery of freedom and democracy to those living under repressive regimes may be Realpolitik in Washington, but intractable problems such as nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea demand a rather more subtle, multilateral approach.
There is plenty of scope here for both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, along with the European Union and the US, to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power. A similar approach ought be taken to curb further proliferation in North Korea. Provided suitable outcomes can be verified, the danger inherent in the US refusal to rule out force will be neutralised.
Vienna 22 November 2004 |
 |
| Mark Gwozdecky |
"It appears that the suspension is in effect, but we are going to need a couple of days more before we can truly verify that all the facilities, and there are at least a dozen, have been suspended," said Mr. Gwozdecky.
Mr. Gwozdecky says inspectors have to install seals and make a full inventory of materials and components so that they can check if anything has changed next time they visit.
He added the IAEA is hoping to complete the work before the board of governors meets Thursday to assess whether Iran's nuclear file should be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Iran says its program is purely peaceful, but the size of some facilities and the fact that nuclear activities were hidden from the world for almost 20 years have raised suspicions that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.
The IAEA confirmed that before the suspension that Iran had produced about two tons of UF-six gas that can be used to purify uranium for use as fuel in nuclear plants or in nuclear weapons.
But Mr. Gwozdecky says the UF-six produced by Iran is not bomb material and in any case not enough to be of use for nuclear weapons.
Is the U.S. planning military action in Iran?
Washington and the European Union are on a collision course over how to neutralize Tehran's nuclear capabilities.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Nov. 22, 2004 | Pentagon hawks have begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralize its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets. With a deadline of Monday for Iran to begin an agreed freeze on enriching uranium, which can be used to produce nuclear weapons, sources have disclosed that the latest Pentagon gaming model for "neutralizing" Iran's nuclear threat involves strikes in support of regime change.
Although the United States has made clear that it would seek sanctions against Iran through the United Nations should it not meet its obligations, rather than undertake military action, the new modeling at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear to political target lists, is causing deep anxiety among officials in the U.K., France and Germany.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to meet on Thursday to decide whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for being in breach of nonproliferation measures. Sources close to the Bush administration have warned that British Prime Minister Tony Blair will have to choose between the E.U.'s pursuit of the diplomatic track and a more hard-line approach from the White House. While President Bush clearly favors more stick and less carrot, it is not yet clear what the stick might be: U.S. administration sources say targeted airstrikes -- by either the U.S. or Israel -- aimed at wiping out Iran's fledgling nuclear program would be difficult because of a lack of clear intelligence about where key components are located. Despite America's attempt to turn up the heat on Iran, analysts remain deeply uncertain whether the increasingly bellicose noises that are coming from Bush administration figures represent a crude form of "megaphone" diplomacy designed to scare Iran into sticking to its side of the bargain, or evidence that Washington is leaning toward a new military adventure. Details of the emerging Pentagon thinking come as U.S. officials have spent the past week turning up the pressure on Iran before the deal comes into force. U.S. officials are expected to meet with European diplomats and IAEA officials to complain about Iran's continuing production of substantial quantities of uranium hexafluoride, which can be used in a weapons program. Although not explicitly barred in the accord, U.S. officials believe it amounts to a serious show of bad faith by Iran. Speaking on the fringes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting in Santiago, Chile, Sunday, Bush ratcheted up the pressure on Iran. "It is very important for the Iran government to hear that we are concerned about their desires and we're concerned about reports that show that, before a certain international meeting, they're willing to speed up the processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon," Bush said. Referring to the European countries that negotiated the deal with Iran, Bush added: "They do believe that Iran has got nuclear ambitions, as do we, as do many around the world. "This is a very serious matter. The world knows it's a serious matter, and we're working together to solve this matter." Under a pact reached by the European countries and Iran last week, Iran is due to suspend all uranium enrichment, while it negotiates a deal in which it would receive trade incentives and peaceful nuclear technology. Sunday, the British Foreign Office tried to play down fears that Iran is already breaching the deal that was negotiated with the E.U., insisting that the IAEA be allowed to issue its own verdict on Tehran's compliance this week. "We will wait and see what the report is: The Iranians have got until Nov. 25," said a spokesman. But Whitehall sources said the U.K. accepted that Iran had a complex and extensive nuclear program that could not be shut down overnight. "There is a lot of speculation that is unfounded. Obviously there have been a lot of concerns in the past, but there's a deal on the table and we hope that they will stick with it," said one. Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has just announced his resignation, told reporters that U.S. intelligence had seen hard evidence that Iran was close to putting a nuclear weapon on a long-range weapons system. The allegation was immediately challenged by officials in the State Department, who said the information, which had come from a single "walk-in" source, had yet to be verified.
| Comment Why America has got it so wrong on Iran Peter Beaumont Sunday November 21, 2004 The Observer What is the likely outcome of a confrontation between the US and Iran? I don't mean the la-la-land futurology, still being served up by friends of the Bush Administration over the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, about how the world will still be a safer place and democracy will spread to areas other Presidents couldn't reach. I prefer to subscribe to a reality that says that the US and its allies have screwed up twice and that Washington is threatening to do so again. That we sleep-walked into an unfolding disaster in Iraq, despite ample warnings of its tragic course. That says that still lawless Afghanistan - awash with a bumper crop of opium - is a glass more than half-empty. And that says Iran is another accident about to happen. The screw-up view of history sees US foreign policy backfire again as, seduced by its own ideological certainty that all it does is right, it continues its project to create a series of failed and fragile states running seamlessly from the borders of Pakistan to within spitting distance of the Dead Sea. Osama bin Laden could not have planned it better. Which leads to the question, is there any evidence at all that Bush's new foreign policy team is likely to be more adept at dealing with Iran than with the previous two crises it confronted? To deal with the issues first. Iran, it is true, presents a series of complex challenges. Operating by the same stretched criteria of distant threat that launched a war against Iraq, Iran appears more dangerous. It has an extant civil nuclear programme and has mastered key nuclear-military technologies. It has long-range missiles which might eventually carry a war head. It has a long history of hostility to Israel. Factions in Iran's political order even now are interfering in Iraq. But the crucial issue is precisely what this agglomeration of detail means? Seen from Washington, where all gaps these days seamlessly join up, it means that Iran is a hostile, terror-sponsoring state, meddling in Iraq and on the verge of acquiring weapons with which it could target Tel Aviv. The European view, which has sought to negotiate a uranium enrichment freeze rather than confront Tehran, is more subtle and factors in the full spectrum of Iran's intentions. Iran, seen from this vantage point, is an infinitely more complex construction, with power structures that are competitive and contradictory - with the greatest competition for a more open society coming from Iran's younger generation. Iran, too, displays a curious mind set. Through its culture and recent history, it sees itself as a player on the world stage. It pricks America in Iraq because it can, not because it has greater ambitions than to have a friendly state next door. Its endless foot-dragging over nuclear inspections and declarations, seen in this light, is inward looking, defensive and as much about pride as hostile intentions. Iran's nuclear ambiguity - like Saddam's over his retention of WMD - and its determination to show it has mastered key elements of the physics and engineering to make a bomb, also serves a purpose. In a world where the US has recently invaded two of Iran's neighbours in quick order, there are hawks who believe in the value of a nuclear deterrent, even if that deterrent is as yet incomplete. Iran, seen from the European viewpoint, feels compelingly real. Seen from Washington it feels like another over-hyped threat. Which leaves a dangerous paradox. For the risk is that the harder America pushes, the more prickly and dangerous Iran is likely to become. Like Iraq, it has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which begs the question, why precisely is Washington pushing so hard? According to some senior diplomats it is in part a question of amour-propre, frustration that its is UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, which is handling the dossier, and the Europeans doing the talking. But it is more than that. In July the Israeli Knesset was presented with an annual intelligence assessment that said Iran (now Iraq has been smashed) is its greatest threat. So we step towards confrontation once again. It is clear that Bush, unembarrassed by the fact that the intelligence used to justify the case for war against Saddam was cooked up, is playing the same game again. The claim last week that US intelligence had discovered Iran was close to modifying its missiles to take a nuclear pay load, the Washington Post quickly revealed, had come from a single, unverified 'walk-in source'. There is a sense of déjà vu about all this: that realities once again are being concocted for ideological expediency. And that left to its own devices Washington will screw up the complex problem of Iran. This time Britain cannot be party to it. |
I wonder if regime change can be accomplished fast enough to stop Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.
 See the John Metzler archive |
 |
UNITED NATIONS — The atomic clock is ticking in Teheran. Or more precisely the virtually unchecked nuclear proliferation by the Islamic Republic of Iran continues apace with only procedural oversight by international authorities and a tepid willingness by key Foreign Ministries to seriously confront a country which could emerge as a nuclear weapons power sooner rather than later.
Recent diplomatic initiatives by Britain, France and Germany aimed at controlling Iranian nuclear proliferation possibilities are warranted but deal with treating the symptoms — enriching uranium and producing plutonium, namely its proscribed bomb making capability. The problem remains the near theological convictions of the Teheran regime that it not only has a sovereign right to possess nuclear weapons but will find a way hook or crook to procure them despite the political opprobrium.
Yet such optimism ahead of a review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the UN’s nuclear watchdog group, presupposes the ability of the West to offer Iran commercial and political incentives which will serve as trading barter in exchange for ending nuclear proliferation. The alternative as proposed by the Bush Administration, would be taking the case to the UN Security Council.
Ironically tough diplomacy leading to Security Council action, would likely prove counterproductive and dangerously lead Iran’s principal critics down a blind ally. A Security Council draft resolution pressing for economic sanctions would be sidetracked by the very countries doing brisk business in Islamic Iran — France, China , Germany, Russia . And what would be embargoed — oil, the very lifeblood of the countries proposing sanctions? Carpets, pistachios?
As the Soviets used to say, “look at the correlation of forces” in the Security Council. The USA and Britain (with far less enthusiasm) will press for a hard line. France with beaucoup business interests in Iran will offer some nice rhetoric but little else.
Russia — who just sold Iran a nuclear power station at Bushehr and maintains lucrative commercial contracts will beg to differ. People’s China — weapons supplier to and a major trade partner with Teheran will press for a “non-confrontational” approach on the nuclear proliferation issues.
Don’t forget that the Islamic Republic of Iran remains a major oil exporter to the European Union and Japan and moreover is the largest petroleum supplier to the People’s Republic of China.
Thus at best, the Security Council route could offer a slap on the wrist to the Atomic Ayatollahs and at worst provoke Teheran’s hardliners to prioritize proliferation as the ultimate insurance policy against further “foreign intimidation.”
One again the world community has been wooed into the trance that Teheran at long last may be willing to play by the rules. But the mendacious mullahs are playing by a very different game book; while the Europeans and the USA press for verifiable nuclear non-proliferation, the mullahs will view this demand like the proverbial bazaar merchants and strike a “floating deal” which somehow will look good at first and then appear as not quite the diplomatic “breakthrough “ that we originally assumed.
The recent European Union Agreement states “Iran has committed itself to immediately suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as a confidence building measure.” The EU equally reconfirmed Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Still European negotiators concede that this suspension is simply a first step in a complicated process which would guarantee Teheran’s nuclear non-proliferation. Even the perpetually optimistic EU diplomat Javier Solana concedes, “It is however only the start. We now need to work rapidly to produce a solid long-term agreement.”
A New York Times editorial cautioned, “unfortunately this agreement does little more than reinforce, and slightly expand, a freeze that Iran agreed to last year, then abandoned…going down this imperfect road again must not mean letting Iran string Europe’s diplomats along indefinitely while secretly readying itself to begin building nuclear weapons. Iran has a long history of cheating on its nuclear non-proliferation obligations and Europe has a history of refusing to draw the line.”
A quarter century after the collapse of a pro-West Iran into the camp of Islamic fundamentalism and clerical rule, strong secular political undercurrents are eroding the once firm control of the mullahs. The corruption and incompetence of Teheran’s theocrats, combined with an exploding youth population, high unemployment, and frustration by a talented but disenfranchised people has sparked political resistance.
The Persian puzzle which policymakers face--given the political stakes, remains as crucial today as it was a quarter century ago when this odious regime seized power in Teheran. The challenge for U.S. policy remains actively supporting democratic political change inside Iran and stopping the still-ticking atomic clock.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.
DoctorZin: Email Fox News!
I saw the following interview on Fox News and we need to complain! (The following is from an email from Banafsheh).
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/
We shall see...
5.56mm
I sent an email to FOX. Sheesh, they (FOX) can do better than this. Thanks for the heads up.
We'll have regime change I think, in 2005, but it'll be bloody. I noticed that American deaths in Iraq are approaching 1,300. Can I just say this? That's a lot of people. But it's nothing compared to the casualities from a single WMD attack.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
/312_G.jpg)